Subconscious painting
Ioannis
<http://users.forthnet.gr/ath/jgal/paintings/>
Enjoy.
--
Ioannis
http://users.forthnet.gr/ath/jgal/
_____________________________________________
The moment you think it's x, it changes to ~x
david anthony magitis
Morpheal
subconsciously instigated contents ?
R.M.
Ioannis
>
> Are you claiming "automatic painting" or simply externalizing allegedly
> subconsciously instigated contents ?
>
> R.M.
I'd say a mixture of both. Most painters start with a very clear idea of
what they want to paint, whereas I really have no idea what the final
looks (or will look) like when I start, simply because the subject is
"fluid" and "morphs" as it is being painted.
In addition, many of the finer details are visible only from a distance
and only after the painting is done and I am given glimpses of the
subjects in my dreams, but I do not remember them until I have finished
them.
Morpheal
> I'd say a mixture of both. Most painters start with a very clear idea of what they want to paint, whereas I really have no idea what the final
looks (or will look) like when I start, simply because the subject is
"fluid" and "morphs" as it is being painted.
Have you found a way to make a painting that will morph actively after
it is painted, in a controlled manner, introducing predictable chaos in
to the process as a kind of live dynamic, rather than a static
predetermined process ?
Of course, I doubt anyone has done so, as of yet.
The best anyone seems to do, in approaching the ideal, is to involve the
morphing in the process of creation, rather than creating a creation tha
morphs in relation to its context, after it is freed from the creator of
that creation.
You can see where I am leading toward. Morphealism.
> In addition, many of the finer details are visible only from a distance and only after the painting is done and I am given glimpses of the subjects in my dreams, but I do not remember them until I have finished them.
Ah, but your dreams are never your own, and if they were your own
they could never ever come true. Not to say that the dreams you are
likely to be given to are the ones you would ever want to have. Dreaming
is not what it used to be...but that makes it more real, not less.
R.M.
Ioannis
[snip]
> Have you found a way to make a painting that will morph actively after
> it is painted, in a controlled manner, introducing predictable chaos in
> to the process as a kind of live dynamic, rather than a static
> predetermined process ?
>
> Of course, I doubt anyone has done so, as of yet.
It's possible. Just paint automatically and then scan the image and
morph it with the appropriate software. I don't see what the problem is
with that.
> The best anyone seems to do, in approaching the ideal, is to involve the
> morphing in the process of creation, rather than creating a creation tha
> morphs in relation to its context, after it is freed from the creator of
> that creation.
>
> You can see where I am leading toward. Morphealism.
We are having some confusion here which stems from inappropriate or
insufficient terminology. What I understand as "morphealism", at least
insofar as my case is concerned, is more of a subconscious "passive"
change, mainly because of the brain's desire to make loose associations.
You seem to have in mind a more "dynamic" concept of morphealism, which,
as I outlined above, can be done successfully via appropriate software.
[snip]
> Ah, but your dreams are never your own, and if they were your own
> they could never ever come true.
Huh? My dreams are not my own? Whose are they? Popeye's?
> Not to say that the dreams you are
> likely to be given to are the ones you would ever want to have. Dreaming
> is not what it used to be...but that makes it more real, not less.
I don't understand your reasoning here. Dreaming is a very personal and
quite chaotic process and as such, by definition it retains some sort of
passive "morphealism", which can never be brought out exactly, because
of the natural loss of memory between the sleeping and the awake state.
Other than that, I don't quite see your point. The dreams I am given are
_exactly_ the ones that my subconscious brain wants me to see, obscured
naturally by the conscious mind's prudeness, censorship and taboos.
Nothing more, nothing less.
> R.M.
Morpheal
> It's possible. Just paint automatically and then scan the image and
morph it with the appropriate software. I don't see what the problem is
with that.
No. Step further. Set the creation free from the creator and let it
evolve in relation to its environment.... It can be done. Of course then
it is the effects of others when we are discussing an object that is not
self actualizing, but is actualized by the effects of others upon it.
For instance let the visitors to the gallery work on it as they pass
through the gallery. Let go of your control over its destiny.
It's too traditional, too politically conservative, and too human, to
retain total, rigid, control over the creation, as creator. That's a
signature of human attitude and action. Often unthought about. The
godlike creativity would let go of that control and allow it to evolve
freed of that traditional constraint and narrow definition as to what it
ought to become and be. You see what I am getting at ?
> We are having some confusion here which stems from inappropriate or
> insufficient terminology. What I understand as "morphealism", at least
> insofar as my case is concerned, is more of a subconscious "passive"
> change, mainly because of the brain's desire to make loose associations. You seem to have in mind a more "dynamic" concept of morphealism, which, as I outlined above, can be done successfully via appropriate software.
Not the meaning of the term, but the subconscious certainly is morpheal
in its own inherent nature. Depth psychology definitely discusses that,
and that is the basis of surrealism. At its very root. To take that out
into the world is an incomplete project in traditional surrealism... and
what I am then discussing is the next step forward.
> Huh? My dreams are not my own? Whose are they? Popeye's?
Well, Popeye might star in your dreams uninvited and unwanted there.
In fact you might not even have seen Popeye in your conscious life, and
there Popeye is invader of your dreams, acting quite differently than
you might wish anyone to act in your dreams. Even out of character with
your own self and views of the world. There is that autonomy within that
plane of existence... the dreamt of.
> I don't understand your reasoning here. Dreaming is a very personal and quite chaotic process and as such, by definition it retains some sort of passive "morphealism", which can never be brought out exactly, because of the natural loss of memory between the sleeping and the awake state.
You want to sieze personal control over it and claim it has no evolution
of its own, or external life of its own,... as if you are the sole
creator of the dream creation. That is a kind of hubris that you are
likely to find regretable and falsified, eventually.
> Other than that, I don't quite see your point. The dreams I am given are _exactly_ the ones that my subconscious brain wants me to see, obscured naturally by the conscious mind's prudeness, censorship and taboos. Nothing more, nothing less.
No. A dream can violate your taboos, your internal censorship. You have
a clash of censors then. Your's can lose and you could be subjected to
what you would never have dreamt of. Of course there is a historical
basis in perceptual experience and in the complexities of your own
psyche, plus suggestion being involved. The power of suggestion cannot
ever be ruled completely out. However, I think you have too narrow and
self controlled a viewpoint of dreams. Dreams are more autonomous than
that, and what is dreamt is more than you could dream of dreaming, is
sometimes what is more the truth.
R.M.
Morpheal
[snippety do da, snippety day, my owe my what a snippy day....]
I forgttamenshun....
As science progresses there is less and less need for investigative
scientific study of matter, life, the universe. Less and less need to
observe the historical basis, as (in many ways) the creative artist
takes over from the scientist. Art ascends once again, overtaking and
surpassing science. The lessons learned then allow the artist to create
with biotechnological means, for example, using the living medium,
anything that the previously acquired scientific knowledge, gathered
from the given nature, allows to be created. The universe eventually
becoming the artistic medium, the palette, so to speak, from which all
possible imaginings can be painted onto the universal canvas.
Now you can see how the role of the painter ?
R.M.
Ioannis
[snip]
> No. Step further. Set the creation free from the creator and let it
> evolve in relation to its environment.... It can be done. Of course then
> it is the effects of others when we are discussing an object that is not
> self actualizing, but is actualized by the effects of others upon it.
Look, there's no need to bring in Heizenberg in all this. "Set the
creation free from the Creator" is a utopia. All creations bare the mark
of their creators, no matter how well the creator wants to "hide" behind
the creation. And I am certainly not interested in creating "apersonal"
works. I _want_ my creations to bare my mark.
> For instance let the visitors to the gallery work on it as they pass
> through the gallery. Let go of your control over its destiny.
My art has no "destiny". It's just that: Automatic and subconscious
painting. Doing what you suggest, eventually will bring in disorder and
chaos, which then everyone is free to "translate" as they please. I am
not interested in such a creation. If you want chaos which morphs
according to the observer, pass some acrylics to a monkey and let him
paint against a canvas. _That's_ a creation "free" of its creator,
because the monkey is completely detached from its creator, therefore
the monkey's creation is too.
> It's too traditional, too politically conservative, and too human, to
> retain total, rigid, control over the creation, as creator. That's a
> signature of human attitude and action. Often unthought about. The
> godlike creativity would let go of that control and allow it to evolve
> freed of that traditional constraint and narrow definition as to what it
> ought to become and be. You see what I am getting at ?
Yes, and I don't like it. You are getting into some heavy Zen stuff
above and I was never interested in it. A complete "detachment" from
one's creation serves no purpose, other than to increase the already
existent entropy of the system. Humans are by definition "control
freaks". When society advances to the point when individuals do not
exert control over other humans, _then_ such a paradigm will prove to be
almost useful. Prior to this, why should I bother? To exemplify that I
am not a control freak? But I am. I want my creations to bare my
signature. Heck, even myself, I bare the sign of my creator. So I don't
see why I should do this.
[snip]
> Not the meaning of the term, but the subconscious certainly is morpheal
> in its own inherent nature. Depth psychology definitely discusses that,
> and that is the basis of surrealism. At its very root. To take that out
> into the world is an incomplete project in traditional surrealism... and
> what I am then discussing is the next step forward.
What you say cannot be done without engaging into a deep Zen attitude.
And I am sorry to say that I do not ascribe to the Zen Buddhist's views.
Perhaps a decade ago, I might have been able to do this, but not today.
[snip]
> Well, Popeye might star in your dreams uninvited and unwanted there.
> In fact you might not even have seen Popeye in your conscious life, and
> there Popeye is invader of your dreams, acting quite differently than
> you might wish anyone to act in your dreams. Even out of character with
> your own self and views of the world. There is that autonomy within that
> plane of existence... the dreamt of.
Sorry, but the dreamt of place of existence _has_ to be interpreted
somehow. Crudely, perhaps because of the reasons you give above, but
nevertheless interpreted, anyway. You are essentially suggesting a
creation/interpretation process, where the observer takes part in the
creation/interpretation nondestructively, in an indirect way as to let
the creation morph along.
This is not only impossible, but it is not my intention, anyway. My
intention is to show and exemplify "the ugliness" that lurks inside our
minds. Show The ugliness in a beautiful way. And this _requires_ a very
specific instanciation _via_ this reality. The conscious one.
[snoip]
> You want to sieze personal control over it and claim it has no evolution
> of its own, or external life of its own,... as if you are the sole
> creator of the dream creation. That is a kind of hubris that you are
> likely to find regretable and falsified, eventually.
Are you saying that it is a hubris to instanciate _my_ side of the
collective subconscious? I agree that the collective dreamt of reality
is perhaps universal and as such I should take care to detach myself
from it, but so far I have no proof that there is anything outside ME.
The Creator. When you (or anyone) can furnish proof that shows that we
are talking about a non-personal experience which should not be
disturbed and should be allowed to morph independently, then I can
understand your view. Apart from that, what you say cannot be
effectively done, for very simple reasons, me not ascribing to Zen,
notwithstanding.
[snip]
> No. A dream can violate your taboos, your internal censorship. You have
> a clash of censors then. Your's can lose and you could be subjected to
> what you would never have dreamt of.
Ah! That's what I am interested in. Painting the "unheard of/unseen of",
but in _this_ side of reality. This is certainly possible via automatic
painting.
> Of course there is a historical
> basis in perceptual experience and in the complexities of your own
> psyche, plus suggestion being involved. The power of suggestion cannot
> ever be ruled completely out. However, I think you have too narrow and
> self controlled a viewpoint of dreams.
I don't think you can know what my view of dreams is. You are not me. In
fact, you are just letters on my screen. _When_ and _if_ we can share a
real experience by swapping psyches, _then_ I can extrapolate based on
the dual experience. Before that, the collective subconscious is MY
subconscious. Is it clear now?
> Dreams are more autonomous than
> that, and what is dreamt is more than you could dream of dreaming, is
> sometimes what is more the truth.
Well, ok, but in order to be able to communicate _anything_ from this
realm, some interpretational basis has to be chosen, and what do you
know, I am choosing my own conscious. Like what should I have chosen?
Somebody else's?
Ioannis
What I can see is that you are idealizing "the Painter" and pushing the
analogy Painter/Creator too far.
Regardless, your paragraph above opens a whole can of worms, and
contains many points with which I do not agree, anyway.
"Science progresses"? I am sorry to say that even though I have formal
training in many sciences, my view is completely different. Science
actually is following the way of the Dodo.
What you see today and you label it "science" is not much more than
trained monkeys trying to perform pseudo-intellectual feats. Without
much success, either, on a personal level.
As one who has performed several such interesting feats,
(http://users.forthnet.gr/ath/jgal/math/)
I can safely testify to you that they are neither useful nor impressive
for me anymore.
As for the universe _becoming_ the artistic medium, there's no need to
stress this, as the universe _is_ already a huge medium, on which we,
the creators, paint continuously. The canvas bares the mark of the most
intelligent painter out there, but apart from it, the only painters
_left today_ are us.
A human painter is not God. One can only hope to instanciate one
particular aspect of one's existence. Human painters do not have
Heizenberg's principle at their disposal. They only have crude paints
and brushes.
When and if you equip me with a divine airbrush I will paint for you
God. Till then, I can only paint destructively, since my creation
necessarily interferes with somebody else's view of reality.
Morpheal
> Look, there's no need to bring in Heizenberg in all this. "Set the
creation free from the Creator" is a utopia. All creations bare the mark
of their creators, no matter how well the creator wants to "hide" behind
the creation. And I am certainly not interested in creating "apersonal"
works. I _want_ my creations to bare my mark.
Yes it is. The ultimate creator is utopian isn't it ? It frees the
creation once created, to be and become, evolve and create. So, why not
consider the origins of the universe in macrocosm as mirrored in the
microcosm of the evolution of our arts ? Isn't the utopian the goal and
essentially the same ?
And yes, the creator in both instances often wants to hide, and not
upstage the creation. You don't want more attention than your painting
is getting, from the crowd, do you ????
> My art has no "destiny". It's just that: Automatic and subconscious
painting. Doing what you suggest, eventually will bring in disorder and
chaos, which then everyone is free to "translate" as they please.
You are very conservative, but that does tend to be the trend.
> existent entropy of the system. Humans are by definition "control
> freaks".
Control freaked until they control freak.... the victim becoming the
victimizer, is not an uncommon theme in human histories. It takes too
much enlightenment for most to ever see beyond that kind of conditionned
response type of learning from the system.
I heard someone say that all they can find nowadays are submissives and
dominants. Everyone, he said, is a submissive or a dominant. He was
referring to his social forays in search of social connection and
presumably whatever types of intimacy turn his crank. He felt society as
a whole had changed to more extreme in that regard. I don't quite agree
with him, but he's got a valid point that you seem to echo in one way.
It's a danger.
> What you say cannot be done without engaging into a deep Zen attitude.
And I am sorry to say that I do not ascribe to the Zen Buddhist's views.
Perhaps a decade ago, I might have been able to do this, but not today.
Maybe tao, but not quite zen. Though I wish someone would stop hacking
at my uncarved block. I like it uncarved. I don't want it hacked at. No,
they never listen.....
> creation/interpretation process, where the observer takes part in the
> creation/interpretation nondestructively, in an indirect way as to let
> the creation morph along.
Why "non destructively" ? I think that's too one sided. The universe is
full of destructive events. So are we, humans. We are similar to it.
More similar than we usually care to admit to being. In some ways the
world is constructed remarkably well, even politically, for being a
training ground from where exploration can begin into the far reaches of
the cosmos... It won't be peaceful out there. It will be extreme
competition. (Heinlein was the only one who was near to being right.)
> This is not only impossible, but it is not my intention, anyway. My
intention is to show and exemplify "the ugliness" that lurks inside our
minds. Show The ugliness in a beautiful way. And this _requires_ a very
specific instanciation _via_ this reality. The conscious one.
Is survival ugly ? Would you rather die ?
> Are you saying that it is a hubris to instanciate _my_ side of the
> collective subconscious? I agree that the collective dreamt of reality
> is perhaps universal and as such I should take care to detach myself
> from it, but so far I have no proof that there is anything outside ME.
> The Creator. When you (or anyone) can furnish proof that shows that we
> are talking about a non-personal experience which should not be
> disturbed and should be allowed to morph independently, then I can
> understand your view. Apart from that, what you say cannot be
> effectively done, for very simple reasons, me not ascribing to Zen,
> notwithstanding.
Ok, that's a different question. I didn't suggest that there is an
ANTHROPOCENTRIC type of being, a HE or SHE creative force, personalized
deity, type of thing out there or in here or anywhere else. I think that
is simply the extreme of hubris to suggest that WE KNOW what IT is and
how IT functions. We project our own into the heavens and that becomes
what we think IT is. No. At best one can say "I don't know" and go on
living and crweating in the universe as given.
> I don't think you can know what my view of dreams is. You are not me. In fact, you are just letters on my screen. _When_ and _if_ we can share a real experience by swapping psyches, _then_ I can extrapolate based on
the dual experience. Before that, the collective subconscious is MY
subconscious. Is it clear now?
Yes, you're on the same track as I was suggesting. You're not really
going down a different stream of thought. Discerning the difference is
not a common skill. It all merges in most instances. They lose their own
minds in the maelstrom of it all and what is and what is not adopted
from it becomes a bit of a mixture. Not usually a good mixture either.
> Well, ok, but in order to be able to communicate _anything_ from this
> realm, some interpretational basis has to be chosen, and what do you
> know, I am choosing my own conscious. Like what should I have chosen?
> Somebody else's?
Yes, you have to have some kind of language.
Some common metaphor, perhaps.
R.M.
Morpheal
> What I can see is that you are idealizing "the Painter" and pushing the analogy Painter/Creator too far.
Not at all. I didn't mean to idealize the painter. Some do tend to do
that, even nowadays, but only from artistic ignorance, not really from a
sound knowledge of what art and aethetics are.
> "Science progresses"? I am sorry to say that even though I have formal
> training in many sciences, my view is completely different. Science
> actually is following the way of the Dodo.
That's what I said. The scientist as we know it becomes extinct. The
technican is an intermediary phase. Eventually the artist takes over the
creative process and the others only improve and repair the paint brush.
In fact science might be limited to explaining what is created and what
is improved as to technique and technology, often after the fact.
> A human painter is not God. One can only hope to instanciate one
> particular aspect of one's existence. Human painters do not have
> Heizenberg's principle at their disposal. They only have crude paints
> and brushes.
I disagree. Invent a way of including it. It can be done. I am sure of
that. In relation to any art form.
> When and if you equip me with a divine airbrush I will paint for you
> God. Till then, I can only paint destructively, since my creation
> necessarily interferes with somebody else's view of reality.
Paint as if you are a god.
That's all I said.
R.M.
Paul Kinsler
> As science progresses there is less and less need for investigative
> scientific study of matter, life, the universe.
We need the next set of scientific advances to help us dig us
out of the hole we dug for ourselves with the current lot.
Repeat ad infinitum.
It is, mostly, artists who become less relevant -- because their newer
and more obscure motivations and productions become increasingly
irrelevant to what the mass of the public either want or are capable
of understanding. In contrast, while the advance of science involves
even more obscure motivations and abstract formulations, the devices
it results are frequently _useful_ to the mass population, and so they
use them with enthusiasm (eg mobile phones), or they have effects that
cannot be avoided.
--
#Paul
Morpheal
> We need the next set of scientific advances to help us dig us
> out of the hole we dug for ourselves with the current lot.
> Repeat ad infinitum.
No. Definitely wrong. We need an understanding of how to morph
primordial stuff... the fundamental building blocks of the universe.
Then... anything.... is creatively possible. After the artists know
how, and the technicians have oiled and tuned the machines, the
scientists are rather superfluous, compared to nowadays.
> It is, mostly, artists who become less relevant -- because their newer
> and more obscure motivations and productions become increasingly
> irrelevant to what the mass of the public either want or are capable
> of understanding. In contrast, while the advance of science involves
> even more obscure motivations and abstract formulations, the devices
> it results are frequently _useful_ to the mass population, and so they
> use them with enthusiasm (eg mobile phones), or they have effects that
> cannot be avoided.
No, no, no..... their materials and methods expand so that they are more
and more a part of the actual rather than the purely symbollic
transformation of the universe. As I said, eventually it is the basic
building block, so to speak, of the universe that is on the "palette"
and being mixed, for "painting" into existence.... not as symbol but as
actual reality. The making manifest of the idea, rather than
representing it. It isn't science at that point, though science can
still continue to study what is created. Science becomes art criticism,
so to speak.
R.M.
Paul Kinsler
> No. Definitely wrong. We need an understanding of how to morph
> primordial stuff... the fundamental building blocks of the universe.
> Then... anything.... is creatively possible. After the artists know
> how, and the technicians have oiled and tuned the machines, the
> scientists are rather superfluous, compared to nowadays.
You seem to understand very little. Science cannot be generated
with a wave of the hand from some "theory of everything", no matter
how accurate the TOE might be. Physical systems can display enormously
complex behaviors, and generating accurate models and theories
for them requires real work. As examples, a geophysicist or
marine biologist is helped very little by quantum field theory
and general relativity, despite the fact that the geo and marine
subjects are direct consquences of them.
--
#Paul
Morpheal
> You seem to understand very little.
And you understand very much.
In that difference we are parted, twained, differentiated, divided.
Now, what else is there to understand ? I don't like standing under
anything. It might fall and I might end up under the once standing.
Truer than you might sink.
> Science cannot be generated with a wave of the hand from some "theory of everything", no matter how accurate the TOE might be. Physical systems can display enormously complex behaviors, and generating accurate models and theories for them requires real work. As examples, a geophysicist or marine biologist is helped very little by quantum field theory and general relativity, despite the fact that the geo and marine subjects are direct consquences of them.
Very true. Every theory is a temporary expedient. Every natural law is a
fallacy, with pragmatic usefulness, while it remains in force.
Eventually the exceptions to the law break it and it has to be revised,
rewritten, amended, added to.... What of it ? Even constants do not
really exist in Nature. There are no constants or natural laws in
Nature. NONE WHATEVER.
Now what did YOU want to tell ME about science ???????
As to whom in science is helped by whom, it is the complexity of the
whole and how difficult it is to find the inter-relations between
disciplines that poses your problem. It isn't a real problem. A coherent
view of all and everything is eventually possible. People work on the
boundaries and break the fences down, here and there. It's tough.
Toughest work in science that there is. Science tends to become
conservative too. However, there are always radicals, mavericks, rebels,
who refuse to say homage to old ideas and diverge in their thinking
along new paths and outside the niche or box that they were placed into
and programmed or conditionned to remain within.
Scientists can be a bit likenable to rats in a maze. Seen as building
their own maze and making sure they remain within it, shocking each
other with grant deprivations rather than grant rewards... so they
remain in the maze and never find their way through it to EUREKA, I
FOUND IT !!!!! But there is no research grant for that. Trapdoor opens
and back into the maze.
You dig ?
It's how to keep minds busied. Not always about breakthroughs.
R.M.
Ioannis
[snip]
> > A human painter is not God. One can only hope to instanciate one
> > particular aspect of one's existence. Human painters do not have
> > Heizenberg's principle at their disposal. They only have crude paints
> > and brushes.
>
> I disagree. Invent a way of including it. It can be done. I am sure of
> that. In relation to any art form.
Including what? The painter and the airbrush in the painting? It has
been done and quite effectively. You are probably aware of Escher's
paintings. "Gallery" and "Verbum" come to mind, and also some of
Maggride's(sp?) paintings.
> > When and if you equip me with a divine airbrush I will paint for you
> > God. Till then, I can only paint destructively, since my creation
> > necessarily interferes with somebody else's view of reality.
>
> Paint as if you are a god.
That's what I've been doing. In fact that's exactly what I've been
doing, as this is what my paranoia points towards.
> That's all I said.
>
> R.M.
--
Ioannis
[snip]
[snip]
> And yes, the creator in both instances often wants to hide, and not
> upstage the creation. You don't want more attention than your painting
> is getting, from the crowd, do you ????
More attention? I surely would like that for my paintings. But it ain't
gonna happen, because people only want to see "beauty" nowadays and shun
ugliness.
It's like a huge cosmic joke, anyway. Ugliness doesn't want to face
itself in the mirror. It wants to keep looking into a fake mirror which
presents god's face as snowwhite.
[snip]
> You are very conservative, but that does tend to be the trend.
I really doubt you understand what my views are on this. The
characterization "conservative" is pretty illusionary (and conservative
[sic]) in my vocabulary anyway.
[snip]
> Control freaked until they control freak.... the victim becoming the
> victimizer, is not an uncommon theme in human histories. It takes too
> much enlightenment for most to ever see beyond that kind of conditionned
> response type of learning from the system.
No matter how much "enlightment" one receives, that type of "conditioned
response" as you correctly state, will alway be the main theme in
society's history, that's why artists will always make a huge comeback
on this subject.
And anyway, if it is a question of enlightment only, how much of it do
you think one can have, before one goes totally insane?
Does your version of enlightment include maybe blissful prairies and
peaceful visions, by any chance? Because "my" enlightment includes just
the opposite: A grand conspiratorial hell in which I for one (and all
the rest) are imprisoned forever by some sort of insane and evil
creator, until one learns to exlaim with happiness: "The pain is dead,
long live the pain".
[snip]
> Maybe tao, but not quite zen. Though I wish someone would stop hacking
> at my uncarved block. I like it uncarved. I don't want it hacked at. No,
> they never listen.....
Tao is even worse. If I can express the Tao in my art, it ceases to be
Tao. So there is an apparent contradiction inherent in all of creation.
In effect, this contradiction was put forth by the master creator and I
can say with confidence that _this_ is his/her signature: The moment you
express God, God disappears.
Well, fortunately for us, the dark side of God is not Tao. We can
express it all we want, without leaving us alone. Without disappearing.
You like your block uncarved because the moment you carve it it ceases
to be "your" block. So you are arguing from a position of ownership. To
be trully free and enlightened, you can't "own" anything, even an
uncarved block.
On the other hand, I like to own things. And to have power over my
posessions. If I could, I would probably carve _you_ as well. Who
wouldn't? Can you show me ONE person who doesn't like to carve his/her
posessions?
[snip]
>...It won't be peaceful out there. It will be extreme
> competition. (Heinlein was the only one who was near to being right.)
Agreed. But nobody asked me, (or you) if we were made to compete, or if
we actually liked the idea of being plagued by continuous inherent
"comparisons" with other people's creations, whether on art or science.
It's like the master creator was the greatest sadist and trickster of
them all: He goes on to create THE greatest canvas, which cannot be
compared against ANYTHING we ever hope to make with our own hands, and
then he disappears, smiling sardonically, saying: "Hey, guys, give it a
shot. If and when you can manage to create something as beautiful as my
canvas, THEN we can talk".
I say, fuck that. (Apologies for the innapropriate word).
> > This is not only impossible, but it is not my intention, anyway. My
> intention is to show and exemplify "the ugliness" that lurks inside our
> minds. Show The ugliness in a beautiful way. And this _requires_ a very
> specific instanciation _via_ this reality. The conscious one.
>
> Is survival ugly ? Would you rather die ?
I don't quite see what your question has to do with my paragraph, above.
As I outlined in the my previous paragraph though, yes, survival IS
ugly. It is the ultimate hell, because it conditions one's mind and soul
to be insensitive to other people. As such, it is a menace, unless the
soul or mind is incarnated inside a non-conscious body, like an animal.
"Would I rather die"?
Hmmm... Let's say that if you cannot answer this by just looking at my
paintings, I can never explain my reasons to you. You are probably
missing the point of all I want to say through the paintings, anyway.
[snip]
> Ok, that's a different question. I didn't suggest that there is an
> ANTHROPOCENTRIC type of being, a HE or SHE creative force, personalized
> deity, type of thing out there or in here or anywhere else. I think that
> is simply the extreme of hubris to suggest that WE KNOW what IT is and
> how IT functions. We project our own into the heavens and that becomes
> what we think IT is. No. At best one can say "I don't know" and go on
> living and crweating in the universe as given.
I agree with the above, roughly speaking, but let me also add that there
are experiences in this life which coupled with some moderate
intelligence and perhaps insight, can reveal alot about "The Source" of
things, (using this word for lack of better description), or if you like
the "First Canvas".
[snip]
> Yes, you're on the same track as I was suggesting. You're not really
> going down a different stream of thought. Discerning the difference is
> not a common skill. It all merges in most instances. They lose their own
> minds in the maelstrom of it all and what is and what is not adopted
> from it becomes a bit of a mixture. Not usually a good mixture either.
You seem to be suggesting that just because YOU have perhaps a different
and revolutionary insight into what art is, or should be, I should be
also able to follow it and apply it's underlying methodology (if there
is one, which I doubt, because I think what you are describing is too
abstract anyway).
Your suggestion maybe a valid one, but it doesn't always make a good
analogy. In music, for example, the ultimate of arts, most modern
composers have done what you have suggested, only to come up with
extreme bullshit. Good music stopped in the 18th and 19th century. The
apotheosis of music was the music of J.S.Bach. This was the top of the
pyramid. From this point on, it has been downhill. Today we have much
more noise than actual musical art or music. And to close the analogy, I
consider that huge canvas painted with a plain black paint on a museum
somewhere in the States as "noise", as well.
[snip]
> Yes, you have to have some kind of language.
> Some common metaphor, perhaps.
The common metaphor is there. It's the common metaphor for "The
Universal Problem of Existence". Some express it via religion, some via
magick, others via UFO's others still via complex human dramas, such as
tragedies, movies, theatrical plays or music. It's there. And the
metaphor is, to pick a particular instanciation: "CONTRADICTION".
Morpheal
> Including what? The painter and the airbrush in the painting? It has
> been done and quite effectively. You are probably aware of Escher's
> paintings. "Gallery" and "Verbum" come to mind, and also some of
> Maggride's(sp?) paintings.
There is that, in the symbollic manner of those examples. What I meant,
to use a very simple analogy is to make the work of art, the painting,
go beyond the boundaries of painted, and as does the mood ring react to
"emptions" (actually body temperature changes) make the painting so that
it reacts to its environment as that changes. That would be a
beginning.... but only a beginning. The creator no longer controlling
the creation but it interacting with its environment on its own, and
changing in accordance with some built in rules, even some randomness or
chaos, as well as some fixed principles of stimulus and response.
> That's what I've been doing. In fact that's exactly what I've been
> doing, as this is what my paranoia points towards.
Now, that line, I really like. It proves to me that you really are a
serious artist. No one else would ever say that. The Paranoiac
Method,... and haven't you found that you really do become afraid of
certain colors, and mixtures of color, on your painter's palette ? Such
as what if too much green causes envy.... Along those lines but more
seriously driven to monochromiacal tendencies.
R.M.
Morpheal
> More attention? I surely would like that for my paintings. But it ain't gonna happen, because people only want to see "beauty" nowadays and shun ugliness.
If that were true, then soon the only ugliness that they might see would
be politicians and politics. What happens then ? Everything turns very
very ugly.....
> It's like a huge cosmic joke, anyway. Ugliness doesn't want to face
itself in the mirror. It wants to keep looking into a fake mirror which
presents god's face as snowwhite.
What standards of beauty ? What culture, what system of ideas, what
time period, what ethnicity ? What species ? Well, that for a start.
As for God as Snow White,... He obviously forgot to create a suitable
Princess Charming, to wake Him after he bit into that poison apple at
the very beginnings of creation. Sleeping ever since. Nothing can awaken
Him. It's simply that... what self respecting heterosexual guy would...
No way, man,... let her do it, and she doesn't want to. So that's that.
He can sleep forever.
Actually all that kidding aside, if there had been a God, creating it,
in the manner of the myth, what were its standards of beauty ? What was
the aesthetic that was applied in the creation of it ? Now, you have to
reconcile all that ugliness that was created, into the "beauty of
creation". Ah, that's a big problem. So why would the artist do any less
or differently ? You suggesting a lesser and less complete aesthetic is
more suitable to artistry ? I say not. I think you likely agree with me.
> I really doubt you understand what my views are on this. The
characterization "conservative" is pretty illusionary (and conservative
[sic]) in my vocabulary anyway.
Ah... ok... I won't argue.
> No matter how much "enlightment" one receives, that type of "conditioned response" as you correctly state, will alway be the main theme in society's history, that's why artists will always make a huge comeback on this subject.
The artist must forever struggle to keep alive all else other than the
conditionned response of the moment. It is therefore extremely difficult
to be an artist. (The others are only "decorators".)
> And anyway, if it is a question of enlightment only, how much of it do
you think one can have, before one goes totally insane?
If you equate enlightement with straitjacketed, narrow minded, very
strictly rule based thinking, sure, insanity is certain. If you equate
enlightment with a Houdini escape from the straitjacket into thinking
outside the conservative box... well ok....Houdini knew artistry, of a
sort.....
Why artists can be good military strategists. Amongst other things.
A really good artist knows intuitively when to break down the walls at
exactly the right moment. Etc.
> Does your version of enlightment include maybe blissful prairies and
peaceful visions, by any chance? Because "my" enlightment includes just
the opposite: A grand conspiratorial hell in which I for one (and all
the rest) are imprisoned forever by some sort of insane and evil
creator, until one learns to exlaim with happiness: "The pain is dead,
long live the pain".
Nah, all of it.... you're too narrow. And worlds as yet unimaginable in
the far reaches of the cosmos... yet to be explored and known. I do
believe the "souls" of artists will make that journey along with the
"souls" of scientists and engineers. As a differently embodied life
form. In fact here is an even more Earch shaking predication than the
one that I made saying that A.I. crewed starships will be launched, most
probably from beyond Earth's orbit, within the first half of this
century. Yes, this century. The crews of some of those starships will be
capable of using bioengineering to create new organic bodies, using
genetic materials and stored neural patterns, to reincarnate themselves
on distant worlds. And they have millions of years to accomplish that,
in any instance.... It does not have to be done in a day or a week or
even a year. They plant the seed on distant worlds.... and so we
colonize, light years from here, that soon. Yes, that soon.
It's part of the destiny of the human species.
> Tao is even worse. If I can express the Tao in my art, it ceases to be
Tao. So there is an apparent contradiction inherent in all of creation.
In effect, this contradiction was put forth by the master creator and I
can say with confidence that _this_ is his/her signature: The moment you
express God, God disappears.
Yeah,... ok. No, it does not disappear. It's all around you and you are
it as well as everything else is it. You are in it and it is in you. You
don't get it do you ? You are spouting dualities. No dualities. No
dualism. Forget that. Dualism is a trap to create ignorance.
> Well, fortunately for us, the dark side of God is not Tao. We can
express it all we want, without leaving us alone. Without disappearing.
Everything that can and does exist, or that could exist that is "dark"
as you refer to it, IS from the same creation, within the same creation,
and not, as such, an anomaly. You are still stuck on the idea of a moral
creator rather than an a-moral one. No good. No evil. No ugly. No
beautiful. Simply infinite creativity. The vast experiment... It's
darker than Frankensteinian, but it's what it is.
> You like your block uncarved because the moment you carve it it ceases
to be "your" block. So you are arguing from a position of ownership. To
be trully free and enlightened, you can't "own" anything, even an
uncarved block.
My block head. Everyone wants to carve it. I try to keep it in once
piece, or keep it for carving it myself, if I feel like it. It's tough,
really tough.....I want to believe, that I own my own uncarved block
head.... at lest that much. That keeps getting challenged, but as an
artist I have to challenge it back again.
Why some artists make good psi warriors as well as artists. The enemy
keeps trying to carve your block head and you, as the psi warrior keep
challenging that to keep your block head uncarved or self carved and
more your own. It's an ongoing struggle then, if in battle. Psi war is a
bit tougher than psych war. Same idea though. More surreal, however.
Breton and friends were all psych and sometimes psi warriors. Surrealism
is that way. For anyone who crosses the threshold beyond mere academic
discussion.
> On the other hand, I like to own things. And to have power over my
posessions. If I could, I would probably carve _you_ as well. Who
wouldn't? Can you show me ONE person who doesn't like to carve his/her
posessions?
I like to own things too. No doubt. Moreso because I lost all I owned
and did not own anything much of anything for many years. I didn't get
anything other than possessions to replace that loss, in those years, so
definitely the value of what was lost was increased. Hey, I'm human too.
I lost them for a purpose, but that purpose was not realizable,
actualizable and so it was total loss.
> I say, fuck that. (Apologies for the innapropriate word).
True.
My girlfriend (if I had one) is more beautiful than your girlfriend (if
you have one)... No. Not really. She is simply a mixture of
characteristics that I personally happen to prefer or like. It's very
subjective, in every instance. Even when someone is very stereotypic
about it, which I am not in the least, but some are. Stereotypic ideas
of beauty remain very subjective even if a shared subjectivity. No more
true than any other cultural prefernce expressed by a group. It's
subjective.
> "Would I rather die"?
I wouldn't rather die. Definitely not. I have had to expend too much
energy upon staying alive.... Too much invested in staying alive. In for
a pence in for a pound as they say.
> Hmmm... Let's say that if you cannot answer this by just looking at my
> paintings, I can never explain my reasons to you. You are probably
> missing the point of all I want to say through the paintings, anyway.
Subjectively missing the point ? Then maybe you are trying to say
something in the wrong manner ?
>extreme bullshit. Good music stopped in the 18th and 19th century. The
apotheosis of music was the music of J.S.Bach. This was the top of the
pyramid. From this point on, it has been downhill. Today we have much
more noise than actual musical art or music. And to close the analogy,
I consider that huge canvas painted with a plain black paint on a museum
somewhere in the States as "noise", as well.
There you are locked in conservatism again.
Good music has been played using dehumidifier hum. Lou Reed. Metal
Machine Music. What about John Cage, also ? Cale studied with Cage.
Velvet Underground, both Cale and Reed. It goes on and on.... All of it
good music.... but you say ???? Your ears are too conditionned. You
are wearing straitjackets on your ear drums.
I have heard Rave DJs scratch, dub and FX, good music. Very very good
music.... but I know you would argue. <shrug>
> The common metaphor is there. It's the common metaphor for "The
Universal Problem of Existence". Some express it via religion, some via
magick, others via UFO's others still via complex human dramas, such as
tragedies, movies, theatrical plays or music. It's there. And the
metaphor is, to pick a particular instanciation: "CONTRADICTION".
Now, magick.... What did you want to talk about as to magick ?
R.M.
Ioannis
[snip]
> > That's what I've been doing. In fact that's exactly what I've been
> > doing, as this is what my paranoia points towards.
>
> Now, that line, I really like. It proves to me that you really are a
> serious artist. No one else would ever say that. The Paranoiac
> Method,...
Oh, Dali has done it, alrighty. "Paranoia Critique". In my case it's a
bit more elaborate, though. Let me remind you however: Anybody who's too
serious, is not serious.
> and haven't you found that you really do become afraid of
> certain colors, and mixtures of color, on your painter's palette ? Such
> as what if too much green causes envy.... Along those lines but more
> seriously driven to monochromiacal tendencies.
Yes, you've picked this vibe correctly. I am horrified when I start a
new painting, oftentimes spending days or weeks thinking about how to
start, what colors to use, plagued most times by paranoid delusions.
It's like: "Paint ME, John, no, paint _me_. But I was here first. Shut
up, moron, I am the greatest demon, he will paint ME first..."
Also, certain colors I love, while others I completely shun.
I will let the other post drop, because it's getting to be too elaborate
and most other readers have probably fallen to sleep by both our
fruitcakey analyses.
I will keep doing what I know how to do: Paint automatically. The rest
and what it means I will leave to the respected members of a.s. to
figure out.
Morpheal
> Oh, Dali has done it, alrighty. "Paranoia Critique". In my case it's a
bit more elaborate, though. Let me remind you however: Anybody who's too
serious, is not serious.
I disagree with most of that, except that it's a bit more elaborate.
That part is true.
Attempts at imposing totalitarianism come in many forms. Some more
insidious and covert than others.
> Yes, you've picked this vibe correctly. I am horrified when I start a
> new painting, oftentimes spending days or weeks thinking about how to
> start, what colors to use, plagued most times by paranoid delusions.
> It's like: "Paint ME, John, no, paint _me_. But I was here first. Shut
> up, moron, I am the greatest demon, he will paint ME first..."
Well,... yes,... the evil painter at the evil painting, debating with
the demons of paint as to whether to paint or not to paint, that is the
question, whether it is nobler,... etc. I know what you are saying.
No doubt if you were spending that time mass producing mickey mouse ears
you would be free from all demons, but only if you produced the ears
fast enough and perfectly enough every time.
Art is always in peril. Though some way that mickey mouse ears are in
themselves true works of art, from those who have the art to make them.
I have heard that argument attempted to be rigidly enforced, though it
was not mickey mouse ears but another product in another production
environment. More than once in fact. Seems to be a growing, but
shrinking, frame of mind.
> Also, certain colors I love, while others I completely shun.
Well, your love is imperfect. You must learn to love the colors you
hate. They will deprive you of the colors you love and let you have only
the colors you hate.... until you give up painting or love all colors
equally..... Etc. It's probably a form of totalism.
> I will let the other post drop, because it's getting to be too elaborate and most other readers have probably fallen to sleep by both our fruitcakey analyses.
I am sure that is true.
> I will keep doing what I know how to do: Paint automatically. The rest
> and what it means I will leave to the respected members of a.s. to
> figure out.
I'm not respected, so I won't bother about it. ;->
R.M.